dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Knight-Commander
The Circle Now, are we sure the title is given only to those in the Circles? As evidenced, there are two Knight-Commanders living outside of the tower. One must be a mistake - either those two weren't meant to hold the titles and it is a bug, or the title is given for other reasons, than to appoint the leader of a circle. Henio0 (talk) 13:39, January 9, 2013 (UTC) :I agree. Tavish and Harrith never appeared in the Circle tower. Furthermore, I highly doubt that they act as counterparts to First Enchanters, neither I consider "But if they did have a top leader of their own, then he or she would probably be referred to as the Knight-Vigilant" to be anything but speculation. Also I believe that the topic has enough coverage on this page. As such, I proposed the article for deletion. -Algol- (talk) 13:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Proposed for deletion Proposed for deletion. Imho, this article contains too much assumptions to provide quality information about the topic.-Algol- (talk) 13:40, January 9, 2013 (UTC) :Agreed. Not much is known for the exact responsibilities and tasks of the Knight-Commander rank in order to deserve an article on it's own. So I would support to remain as a paragraph in the Templar Order page. 13:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC) ::It should be deleted, anything worth salvaging could be covered much more concisely in the related articles. It hardly warrants a separate article. -HD3 (talk) 03:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC) :::If article about knight commander is going to be delated, so should an article about 1st Enchanter, because it also has very few info. (talk) 20:09, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :I say, it should stay, but not in its current state. 1) it needs to be cleaned up out of the speculation - just cold facts 2) the quality of language improved (no "probably", "maybe" or strange italicness) 3) the page would work as an article naming all the highest-ranking templars. Henio0 (talk) 17:57, January 12, 2013 (UTC) :In it's defense, and as the person who initially created this article, I would like to say that it shouldn't be deleted simply because it is too short. There are other articles on this wikia that have even less content, but nobody seems to have a problem with them. Also, how come First Enchanter gets a page with no complaints from anybody but this one is being considered for deletion? If it's due to a lack of proper citation or the manner by which it is written, then I believe that can easily be rectified. I also agree a hundred percent with Henio0's suggestion that it be it be kept but only with the necessary corrections. When I first created this page, I knew full well that there would be many aspects of it that would be incomplete and so i was hoping that other people could help to fix it up. I'm not trying to justify my mistakes if that's what you may be thinking (and I only ever intended to contribute something to this wiki is all), I just don't think it would be fair to just delete it like that. Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 19:13, January 12, 2013 (UTC) ::Given the precedent set by pages such as Divine, Arigena, First Enchanter, etc. I think there's a place for this article. 02:53, January 13, 2013 (UTC) ::: Much appreciated. Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 12:42, January 22, 2013 (UTC) I have done my best editing the article. Would someone more wiki-savvy check it to see if it is acceptable in its current state, please? Henio0 (talk) 19:46, January 13, 2013 (UTC) :Nicely done . 00:47, January 14, 2013 (UTC) :Thank you very much :) Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 12:42, January 22, 2013 (UTC) As the deletion discussion was evenly balanced, I left this open for an additional period, but as there has been no further feedback it is now time to close it. I think that edits have been made to address the opposer's concerns and I also note that Agol thanked Henio0 "for helping to bring the article back in shape". Because of this, I do not believe there is presently a consensus to delete this article. 04:20, January 27, 2013 (UTC) The image Does anyone know why the image suddenly got so pixelated? It was fine a few days ago. Or is it only pixelated for me? Henio0 (talk) 17:10, January 17, 2013 (UTC) :Looks fine to me. Is it still pixelated for you? 00:06, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::Oh, it seems to be fine, now. :) Thanks for replying :) Henio0 (talk) 17:00, January 18, 2013 (UTC) :::No problems at all. Glad it fixed itself up . 03:06, January 19, 2013 (UTC) Knight Captains Props to Henio0 for helping to bring the article back in shape!:) I'd like to address the matter of Knight-Captains supposedly having the authority to relieve Knight-Commanders of duty. Isn't it just a speculation? Because we have only seen Cullen relieving Meredith of duty, but I doubt we can deduce that this is an actual regulation in the Templar Order. Please note, that Cullen made this decision under very rare and extreme circumstances. It may be a precedent, but we have no evidence of it being a rule. -Algol- (talk) 00:45, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :Thanks. :) As per the Captains, obviously any relief of duty will happen in dire circumstances, as I'm sure the Commanders are not lightly selected. But yes, it is speculation as we've only witnessed one such act as of now. Perhaps we should mention the Kirkwall situation by name, or say something among the lines that if a templar has the majority of the Commander's men against the Commander, then this templar has the authority to release the Commander of duty. Or maybe that the relief is decided by the highest ranking Chantry operative present, with the highest being the Divine, then the Grand Clerics, and then Knight-Captains, and so on. Again, speculations, but still - I'd like the information on the relief to be included, if we find a good way for it to be in the article. Henio0 (talk) 01:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::"or say something among the lines that if a templar has the majority of the Commander's men against the Commander, then this templar has the authority to release the Commander of duty" ::That's... not how military organizations (fantasy or not) work:) They aren't a democracy. I think we should mention the Kirkwall situation by name, as the only precedent of a lower-ranking templar overriding the orders of a higher-ranking one, just like you said. -Algol- (talk) 01:26, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::Agree on the idea that the Kirkwall situation should be mentioned by name. I think I would caution against adding details about how its done, however, for the same reasons that we only have the one data point. --R2sMuse (talk) 19:25, January 25, 2013 (UTC) Towers I have a question to the lore masters of the wiki. Are all Circles housed in towers? We have seen two, and heard of a several more, but I never paid much attention to the Circles in other countries. For one, the Kirkwall one seems to be just a building, old prison in fact. Gallows Prison is the actual location of the circle, isn't it? If so, it doesn't look like no tower to me. If that is in fact the case, we should discontinue the usage of "circle towers" and instead just say "Circles" or something to that effect. I don't know if this isn't a more broad topic for all the wiki, but for now let's discuss it here, as the page makes two references to towers. Henio0 (talk) 01:13, January 23, 2013 (UTC) I guess the usage of a word "tower" doesn't really refer to a particular type of architecture, be it a tower, a mansion, or a dungeon. It's more like a stereotype of the fantasy genre, mages living in towers. Ivory towers, to be specific:) So I guess the usage of the word kinda keeps in line with the general spirit of Dragon Age being a fantasy setting. Though I do have to say that the user certainly has a point. -Algol- (talk) 01:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC)